A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Cluster bombs called 'war crime'"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old January 30th 04, 02:42 AM
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"sddso" wrote in message

Point 1 has it completely backwards. As George Orwell pointed out circa
1944, the objective result from war protesters is that the totalitarian,
non-civilized powers (aka enemies of the United States and Allied
nations) are given aid and comfort;


By your reasoning, democratic powers should be at a disadvantage
in warfare. This runs contrary to the historical evidence. States with
democratic, law-abiding governments have a better record in war
than dictatorships: They are both less likely to start unwinnable
conflicts and more efficient in fighting the war they get involved in.
Allowing criticism makes government more efficient, not less.
An answerable government can call on the loyalty of the soldiers
and citizens, and unaccountable government can expect support
only as when it has victories to boast of.


Not so certain this is entirely true Emmanuel.

I believe you're correct that democratic governments are less
likely to get involved in a war to begin with, but once involved,
the democratic process can be quite undermining to a war effort.


Well it seems to me that democratic governments you refer to are
merely the english speaking island nations and being an island or
independant continent may have as much to do with it than democracy.
Really and empirical analysis is in order here.

The theorems of von Clauswitz state that a population must be ready
pschologically and poltically for war. I believe the aftermatch of
Vietnam brought new credibily to the 19th century Prussian
theoretician in US Military and other circles.

von Clausiwitz was analysing a Prussian Defeat by the French (who so
often fought wars to prevent a rival through the various German states
unifying) and asserted that the Prussians were not ready to fight in
anyway.

Since Gulf war one US populations have been extensively "briefed up"
and the press extensively managed. A number of factors seem to have
influenced the Western population and US senators into the Gulf War 1
and marginialised the opposition. These include the baby incubator
scam in Gulf war one. They Weapons of Mass Destruction "Beleive us
they're there somewhere" shows that western public opinon migh be
manipulated as well if not better than a dictatorship.

Personally I have no problem with invading Iraq for the oil should it
be necessary for my interests. Its kind of like those western range
wars over cattlement upstream cutting of the water supply to guy
downstream. (Only without the romance between the cattlemens son and
daughter)

Unfortunately hyped atrocities are also a characteristic of western
democracies making war. They seem to be every way as bad as the ones
circulating in the dictatorships.


Enemies of democracies have an added tool in undermining the war
effort of their adversaries. They can manipulate public opinion to
some degree.

Lincoln was saved from defeat by timely victories over Confederates
in the fall of 1864, when it seemed to the general public a bloody
stalemate had largely been achieved.


Pity really.

We all know the antiwar
movement of the Vietnam period paralyzed the American government
politically during the early 70's, to the point funding for it
was about to be stopped.


Oil, Israel, infleuntial Jewish Population in USA, attidudes against
marxism all played a part.

Irak may well turn into a Vietnam if the Population can not be won
over.


If the Baathist insurgents doing their
thing in Iraq right now have any political savvy, they should
be very energetic about inflicting casualties on American forces
in country around fall of this year. They may have a shot at
snuffing out the war effort, and replacing a president with their
efforts.



VietCong commited many atrocities on their own people. They still
won.

I suppose there won't be any muslim prostitues with razor blades in
the vagina to demoralised drug ****ed conscripts.



Meanwhile, Stalin and Hitler kept their countries fighting via
raw brutality. Difficult to see a democracy standing up to that
sort of punishment without an exceptionally skilled leader keeping
public opinion "properly" directed.


The German populations had plenty of reasons to fight; though ther
were very trepidatious.




Everyone who is foolish enough to beleive in 'efficient dictatorship'
should study the history of WWII more closely. The waste and
stupidity of which dictatorial regimes are capable are almost
beyond belief.


True enough. Probably in a democracy, the incompetents would be
weeded out more quickly.


There are no democracies in the west apart from switzerland at the
local government. They are all 'republics' or commonwelaths' in which
officials are elected to represent the peoples interests.

Because to the Labyrithn rules, the extreme expense and the need to
raised money and borker deals and the development of elites the people
will is not democractically enforced.

However, there's nothing to prevent a
train of incompetents getting important, war effort jobs. Look
at the people Lincoln was saddled with in his own administration.
The Secretary of War was an outright bandito but due to political
reasons, kept his job for a while.

Political pressures make democratic leaders do dumb things too!


SMH

  #92  
Old January 30th 04, 01:40 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

The totalitarian nations started those conflicts at the time of their
choosing with their large conscript armies fully mobilised trained,
equipped and battle ready while those of the allies were either
very small (like the Americans and British) or underfunded,
demoralised and ill led like the French and South Koreans.


I think that is a too superficial analysis.

It is easy to condemn the French Army of 1940 as "underfunded,
demoralised, and ill led", because it quickly lost the battle. But
that ignores that France had a smaller population than Germany,
that the age group fit for military service had been reduced by the
slaughter of WWI, and that France in the years before the war had
only 1/3 of the industrial strength of Germany -- a production of
20 million tons of steel, for example, as opposed to Germany's 65.


Well by 1939 relatively few of those who had been fit for service
in 1918 were still young enough to still be of military age and
German losses in WW1 were pretty heavy too so that excuse
wont wash.

As for steel production France had more tanks available for
front line service than Germany and although they had some
deficiencies so did the Panzer units which had a far higher
proportion of PkW 1 and 2's than was desirable.


Under these conditions one should not be amazed that the French
forces were weaker than the German forces; on the contrary the
real amazing fact is that they were almost a match.


Numerically they may well have been superior, the problem was
that were too static and wedded to the doctrines of defensive
warfare. The potential danger of a properly led and motivated
French army was shown by the counterattack of DeGaulle's
4th Armored Division on the Meuse bridgehead but it was
too little too late.

The 'weak'
French democracy actually achieved a level of effort that Nazi
Germany would probably not match until late in the war. The
military mobilisation ratio was 1 in 8. Nor were French politicians
inclined to micro-managing the war effort in the style of Hitler;
in fact it could be argued that they left too much to the generals.


The problem is the doctrine adopted by the generals was
for the most part seriously flawed and they found themselves
unable to cope with a war of manoeveur

Evidently much of the effort was wasted -- too much was spent
on the Maginot line and on one of the world's most modern and
powerful fleets, and too little on the air force. The policy of
'corporate welfare' towards arms manufacturers in the years
between the two wars had the effect of discouraging innovation,
and gave the military too much outdated equipment. The large
number of reservists called on were too poorly trained and the
officers corps failed to train them.


ie they were underfunded, demoralised and ill-led. The courage
of individual French soldiers is not an issue despite what some
of the more rabid posters claim, it was their leadership that
was at fault.Well led units like those of LeClerc would prove
just what Frenchmen could do.

But Germany's level of preparedness should not be overestimated
either. When Hitler plunged his country into war, the air force's
supply of bombs was tought to be sufficient for only three weeks
of war. The most numerous tanks in the army were PzKw.I and II
'tin cans' barely fit for combat. The army still had a large number
of 77mm guns dating back to WW1. The fleet was 'under
construction', even the U-boat force was barely capable of
operating. Besides 43 first-line divisions, the Germans too had
51 newly mobilised second-line divisions. Enthusiasm for war
among the people was almost non-existent.


Sure but its army was fully mobilised, well trained and led
for the most part by able Generals with sound modern doctrines
for waging war.

Britain may have a small army -- traditionally -- but it had an air
force that was a match for the Luftwaffe and was outpacing it, and
of course a powerful fleet.


Absolutely but much of that fleet was made up of obsolete
or obsolescent warships and the army was still for the most
part equipped with the same weapons that had been used
in 1918. The RAF had (rightly IMHO) been allocated
the lions share of waht funds were available and so of course
were in the best situation at the outbreak of war.

The USA had an extremely small army,
but the effects of isolatationist and pacificist voices should not be
overrated either: FDR's programs to expand the armed forces on
a huge scale were approved by Congress, which certainly was
sensitive to popular opinion.


And yet when war came to the US on Dec 7 1941 that nation
was fundamentally unprepared and the IJN ran rampant for 6 months
in the Pacific while German U-boats devastated US shipping within
sight of the US coastline.

When fully mobilised democracies may well have a better track
record but there's little doubt that in the opening phases
of the major wars of the 20th century they were unprepared
and consequently a great many men died unnecessarily.

Keith


  #93  
Old January 30th 04, 08:47 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Well by 1939 relatively few of those who had been fit for service
in 1918 were still young enough to still be of military age and
German losses in WW1 were pretty heavy too so that excuse
wont wash.


The frontline soldiers of 1940, to be of age between 18 and
25, would have to be born between 1914 and 1921.
The war had caused a major demographic dip. In March 1940
the French army had 415,000 men less than in May 1917,
despite a quite high level of mobilisation.

Yes, the German population of course also had suffered, but
Germany had twice the population of France, and therefore
it did not have to mobilise to the same extent.

As for steel production France had more tanks available for
front line service than Germany and although they had some
deficiencies so did the Panzer units which had a far higher
proportion of PkW 1 and 2's than was desirable.


Yes, but that is exactly my point. That the French had more
and better tanks than the Germans, _despite_ having only
a third of the industrial base, indicates that they had not
neglected to prepare for war as much as it is often averred.


I dont believe that follows at all. There is MUCH more
to preparation than simply building more tanks. The
parlous state of the French Air Forces and the poor
state of training of the army speak volumes about
lack of preparedness,

Numerically they may well have been superior, the problem was
that were too static and wedded to the doctrines of defensive
warfare.


Absolutely -- the French generalship was poor. But you can
hardly blame French pacificists for the poor intellectual
quality of French generals, most of whom were veterans
of WWI.


I dont recall blaming French pacifists, rather I pointed to the
lack of vision and leadership of the French Generals and
their almost mystical belief in the value of fixed fortifications.

Sure but its army was fully mobilised, well trained and led
for the most part by able Generals with sound modern doctrines
for waging war.


The German army had combat experience from Poland.
German performance in the Polish campaign was not
always great, and that in the bloodless occupations of
Austria and the Rhineland was sometimes disastrous.


Sure but while the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland
the French had the opportunity to improve their
experience and training and didnt make very good
use of that time.

And yet when war came to the US on Dec 7 1941 that nation
was fundamentally unprepared and the IJN ran rampant for 6 months
in the Pacific while German U-boats devastated US shipping within
sight of the US coastline.


But the US forces available in Dec 1941 were enough, over
a longer period, to fight the Japanese to a standstill and shatter
the backbone of their fleet. The flood of reinforcements only
began to flow _after_ the tide had turned.

As for the 'happy time' the U-boats were allowed to have,
this was related more by fundamentally flawed thinking and
carelessness of the authorities than by flaws in material
preparation.


No sir, the lack of even the sort of extemporised escorts used
by the RN in 1939, trawlers with DC racks and an Oerlikon,
were classic signs of flaws in material preparation as was the
reverse lend lease in which Britain and Canada supplied
US with a number of corvettes.

Keith


  #94  
Old January 31st 04, 05:15 PM
sddso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"sddso" wrote in message


Point 1 has it completely backwards. As George Orwell pointed out circa
1944, the objective result from war protesters is that the totalitarian,
non-civilized powers (aka enemies of the United States and Allied
nations) are given aid and comfort;



By your reasoning, democratic powers should be at a disadvantage
in warfare. This runs contrary to the historical evidence. States with
democratic, law-abiding governments have a better record in war
than dictatorships: They are both less likely to start unwinnable
conflicts and more efficient in fighting the war they get involved in.


M. Gustin has neatly neglected to point out that success in armed
conflict is composed of two elements:

1. Build a force.

2. Employ it.

The Western Allies -- largely through US know-how (not quite the same as
deliberate efforts) -- have become talented at Element One's physical
logistics aspects, and tolerably proficient at Element Two when one
confines the analysis to the operational level and below.

At the national/grand strategy level, Western nations are
quintessentially unwarlike, willfully unengaged until ire is aroused.
Problems of national consensus building and retention have yet to be
fully described, let alone analyzed and solved in stable, repeatable
fashion. Nations need to have the will to fight in the first place, the
fortitude to keep it during the struggle, and the patience to slog
through reversals.

The very openness of Western governmental structures makes them fertile
ground for antiwar groups, who have propagandized themselves into the
belief that they are the foremost moral agents now existing. The
populace in general is guilty of ever-shortening attention spans, which
the antiwar elements exploit to great advantage. Flaccidity of purpose,
and self-indulgent infatuation with comforts are also evident.

Allowing criticism makes government more efficient, not less.
An answerable government can call on the loyalty of the soldiers
and citizens, and unaccountable government can expect support
only as when it has victories to boast of.

Everyone who is foolish enough to beleive in 'efficient dictatorship'
should study the history of WWII more closely. The waste and
stupidity of which dictatorial regimes are capable are almost
beyond belief.


Too true. This can engender a sense of inevitability quite contrary to
the correlation of forces at the time. Anybody believing that Allied
victory in WWII was somehow preordained in an abstract sense has little
familiarity with the facts.

First, the Red Army did most of the gruntwork of destroying Nazi
Germany's armed forces. It's no great chore to argue that if the USSR
had not become involved, the Third Reich might still be in existence.

Second, the Western Alliance (read: Britain, the US, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand, with gallant help from a collection of stalwart but
tiny contributors, and China absorbing horrific punishment in tying down
a great chunk of Imperial Japanese forces) more fully developed and
exploited radar, and worked to huge advantage in exploiting
cryptanalysis and COMINT breakthroughs. Hardly any doubt remains that
that atomic bombs ended the War, but radar won it.

It is submitted that all conflicts in which the US has engaged have been
less than efficient, uncertain of outcome, in some cases real squeakers
(WWI is a notable case). Significant segments of the citizenry were in
most cases strongly opposed to the war at hand. This kind of runs
counter to the sly assertion that the country has been dashing about the
landscape, committing depredations against helpless victims where and
when the whim struck.


Navel-gazers and perpetually indignant activists who concede that the
likes of Saddam Hussein are unsavory, yet leap to condemn the Western
powers because the stray mass murderer is punished, or full (read:
ever-mounting) funding rarely gets bestowed on their pie-in-the-sky
fantasies like free health care, bureaucratically micromanaged child
"development," or arts grants for trashy garbage, suffer from the
odious, willfully uninformed thickheadedness known as moral
equivalizing. At best, they should be ignored; that their existence
continues to be suffered at all is a tribute to the forbearance,
strength, and patience of the Allied nations.



"I have heard a lot of old lunatics rave, but never one like
this" -- Hannibal Barcas.


Argument by dismissal is the tactic of losers.

I invite the group to consider the truth of something David Hackworth
(COL, USA, ret) noted in public, about one month after the airliner
attacks over two years ago.

The terrorists, he said, are unable to go at it toe-to-toe with the
armed forces of their enemies, so they choose instead to perpetrate
terror attacks against civil populations. Such tactics are aimed
directly at morale, at the will to resist.

Any effort by antiwar groups in nations targeted by the terrorists are
also aimed at the morale of civil populations. Thus, no difference
exists between the terrorists and the antiwar groups, so it's quite
proper to consider the antiwar groups as treasonous. The absence of
action against antiwar groups is in no sense a comment on the
righteousness of their cause.

  #95  
Old January 31st 04, 07:35 PM
Emmanuel.Gustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sddso wrote:

: At the national/grand strategy level, Western nations are
: quintessentially unwarlike, willfully unengaged until ire
: is aroused.

So what is the problem with that? Warfare is inherently
extremely costly, uncertain in outcome, and destructive.
To be 'quintessentially unwarlike' until it becomes
unavoidable to defend you essential interests seems,
IMHO, a sound and rational policy. Even the great
empires of the past preferred to pick and choose
their expansive wars carefully.

: First, the Red Army did most of the gruntwork of destroying Nazi
: Germany's armed forces. It's no great chore to argue that if the USSR
: had not become involved, the Third Reich might still be in existence.

It is -- of course it was a serious error to attack the
USSR, but the Reich would have lost the war even without
it.

: a great chunk of Imperial Japanese forces) more fully developed and
: exploited radar, and worked to huge advantage in exploiting
: cryptanalysis and COMINT breakthroughs. Hardly any doubt remains that
: that atomic bombs ended the War, but radar won it.

And this, incidentally, illustrates a vital advantage
enjoyed by the Western democracies. Both in the USSR
and in Germany scientific and technological development
was greatly handicapped by stupid decisions and politically
inspired doctrines. And the prosecution of politically or
racially 'challenged' scientist and engineers. This lead
to such aberrations of the mind as 'Aryan Physics' and
the communist approval of the non-evolutionary biology
of what-was-his-name...

German neglect to develop centimetric radars, for example,
was in no small part caused by authoritarian
bone-headedness. It had been declared on good authority
that it would never work, so nobody dared to put out his
neck and try it. In sharp contrast to the style of British
laboratories, where productive chaos was happily tolerated.

: Argument by dismissal is the tactic of losers.

Life is too short to waste time on dissecting
convoluted semi-lunatic rants.

: Any effort by antiwar groups in nations targeted by the terrorists are
: also aimed at the morale of civil populations. Thus, no difference
: exists between the terrorists and the antiwar groups, so it's quite
: proper to consider the antiwar groups as treasonous.

Ridiculous. This reaches the intellectual level of
'to save democracy, we have to destroy it first.'

Emmanuel Gustin

  #96  
Old January 31st 04, 09:20 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
sddso wrote:

: At the national/grand strategy level, Western
nations are
: quintessentially unwarlike, willfully unengaged
until ire
: is aroused.

So what is the problem with that? Warfare is
inherently
extremely costly, uncertain in outcome, and
destructive.
To be 'quintessentially unwarlike' until it
becomes
unavoidable to defend you essential interests
seems,
IMHO, a sound and rational policy. Even the
great
empires of the past preferred to pick and choose

their expansive wars carefully.

: First, the Red Army did most of the gruntwork
of destroying Nazi
: Germany's armed forces. It's no great chore
to argue that if the USSR
: had not become involved, the Third Reich might
still be in existence.

It is -- of course it was a serious error to
attack the
USSR, but the Reich would have lost the war
even without
it.

: a great chunk of Imperial Japanese forces)
more fully developed and
: exploited radar, and worked to huge advantage
in exploiting
: cryptanalysis and COMINT breakthroughs. Hardly
any doubt remains that
: that atomic bombs ended the War, but radar
won it.

And this, incidentally, illustrates a vital
advantage
enjoyed by the Western democracies. Both in
the USSR
and in Germany scientific and technological
development
was greatly handicapped by stupid decisions
and politically
inspired doctrines. And the prosecution of politically
or
racially 'challenged' scientist and engineers.
This lead
to such aberrations of the mind as 'Aryan Physics'
and
the communist approval of the non-evolutionary
biology
of what-was-his-name...

German neglect to develop centimetric radars,
for example,
was in no small part caused by authoritarian

bone-headedness. It had been declared on good
authority
that it would never work, so nobody dared to
put out his
neck and try it. In sharp contrast to the style
of British
laboratories, where productive chaos was happily
tolerated.

: Argument by dismissal is the tactic of losers.

Life is too short to waste time on dissecting

convoluted semi-lunatic rants.

: Any effort by antiwar groups in nations targeted
by the terrorists are
: also aimed at the morale of civil populations.
Thus, no difference
: exists between the terrorists and the antiwar
groups, so it's quite
: proper to consider the antiwar groups as treasonous.


Ridiculous. This reaches the intellectual level
of
'to save democracy, we have to destroy it first.'

Emmanuel Gustin

The mainstream antiwar groups-i.e those opposed to war on religious or
moral grounds are one thing: those who are opposed for political reasons-Ramsey
Clark and his WWP crowd come to mind are something else. Clark has been an
apologist for some really nasty people-Saddam and Milosevic, Noriega, Khadafy,
the Mullahs in Iran, Kim-Il Sung and his wacky son, the Sandinistas, the
PRC for Tianamen, even the Taliban after ENDURING FREEDOM got started. Openly
supporting the enemy could be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the
enemy, at best, and at most, treason. I'd toss Clark and his crowd of unreconstructed
Stalinists into Federal Prison on multiple charges: giving aid and comfort
to the enemy, treason, obstructing the national defense, violating the embargoes
against Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, and Cuba, and that's for starters.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #97  
Old February 1st 04, 07:38 AM
IBM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in news:bvgshk$s5ein$1@ID-
52877.news.uni-berlin.de:

[snip]

racially 'challenged' scientist and engineers. This lead
to such aberrations of the mind as 'Aryan Physics' and
the communist approval of the non-evolutionary biology
of what-was-his-name...


V. Lysenko ( vice J-B Lamarcke )

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #98  
Old February 26th 04, 04:58 PM
Puppinator
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
I've seen the term "carpet bombing" bandied about for years. I've never

seen
or
heard a definition. Is there one? A generally accepted one?


I generally dislike the term since it's often applied to the BUFF and

seems to
mean to most in the world media; "dropping 6 or more bombs at once". The
definition to most of the present and former aviators I know appears to be
"bombing a target *area* rather than a target itself".


Carpet bombing: Large amounts of munitions dropped over an area to dispense
of bad guys and tactical targets.........in other words, opening all the
bays at once to achieve maximum use of force...WTF is wrong with that as
long as mission accomplished?
--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War RobbelothE Military Aviation 248 February 2nd 04 03:45 AM
#1 Jet of World War II Christopher Military Aviation 203 September 1st 03 03:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.